From: "Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@toke.dk>
To: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
Cc: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>, Rpm <rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net>,
Make-Wifi-fast <make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net>,
Keith Winstein <keithw@cs.stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: [Make-wifi-fast] tack - reducing acks on wlans
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 13:52:36 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87bl3jgbgb.fsf@toke.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <C755F873-0719-4F97-886B-654602427A1D@ifi.uio.no>
Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> writes:
>> On 20 Oct 2021, at 12:44, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@toke.dk> wrote:
>>
>> Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> writes:
>>
>>>> On 20 Oct 2021, at 11:44, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@toke.dk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Am I being naive? Why can't such an ARQ proxy be deployed? Is it just
>>>>> because standardizing this negotiation is too difficult, or would it
>>>>> also be too computationally heavy for an AP perhaps, at high speeds?
>>>>
>>>> Immediate thought: this won't work for QUIC
>>>
>>> .... as-is, true, though MASQUE is still being defined. Is this an
>>> argument for defining it accordingly?
>>
>> MASQUE is proxying, right? Not quite sure if it's supposed to be also
>> MITM'ing the traffic?
>
> Wellllll.... I'm not 100% sure. If I understood it correctly, ideas on the table would have it do this in case of tunneling TCP/IP over QUIC, but not in case of QUIC itself - but to me, this isn't necessarily good design? Because: =>
>
>
>> In any case, it would require clients to negotiate
>> a proxy session with the AP and trust it to do that properly?
>
> => Yes.
>
>
>> This may
>> work for a managed setup in an enterprise, but do you really expect me
>> to be OK with any random access point in a coffee shop being a MITM?
>
> MiTM is a harsh term for just being able to ACK on my behalf. Some
> capabilities could be defined, as long as they're indeed defined
> clearly. So I don't see why "yes, you can ACK my packets on my behalf
> when you get a LL-ACK from me" is MiTM'ing. I believe that things are
> now all being lumped together, which may be why the design may end up
> being too prohibitive.
Right, okay, but even setting aside the encryption issue, you're still
delegating something that has potentially quite a significant impact on
your application's performance to an AP that (judging by the sorry state
of things today) is 5-10 years out of date compared to the software
running on your own machine. Not sure that's such an attractive
proposition?
-Toke
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-10-20 11:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-10-19 20:12 Dave Taht
2021-10-19 20:25 ` [Make-wifi-fast] [Rpm] " Matt Mathis
2021-10-19 20:31 ` Omer Shapira
2021-10-20 7:00 ` [Make-wifi-fast] " Michael Welzl
2021-10-20 9:44 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2021-10-20 10:13 ` Michael Welzl
2021-10-20 10:44 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2021-10-20 10:54 ` Michael Welzl
2021-10-20 11:52 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen [this message]
2021-10-20 12:21 ` Michael Welzl
2021-10-20 15:57 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2021-10-20 17:08 ` Michael Welzl
2021-10-20 22:04 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2021-10-20 23:06 ` Anna Brunström
2021-10-21 6:01 ` Michael Welzl
2021-10-20 23:20 ` [Make-wifi-fast] [Rpm] " Omer Shapira
2021-10-21 6:19 ` Michael Welzl
2021-10-21 7:18 ` Michael Welzl
2021-10-21 7:57 ` Keith Winstein
2021-10-21 8:42 ` Michael Welzl
2021-10-21 20:19 ` Keith Winstein
2021-10-20 23:08 ` Omer Shapira
2021-10-20 10:58 ` Sebastian Moeller
2021-10-20 11:55 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2021-10-20 20:37 ` Sebastian Moeller
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://lists.bufferbloat.net/postorius/lists/make-wifi-fast.lists.bufferbloat.net/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87bl3jgbgb.fsf@toke.dk \
--to=toke@toke.dk \
--cc=dave.taht@gmail.com \
--cc=keithw@cs.stanford.edu \
--cc=make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net \
--cc=michawe@ifi.uio.no \
--cc=rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox